Potential Mobile Source Reduction Measures Potential Mobile Source - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Potential Mobile Source Reduction Measures Potential Mobile Source Reduction Measures

Non-Road Idling Lightering Port Measures– Drayage Trucks

Coralie Cooper & Jesse Colman, NESCAUM Ozone Transport Commission Meeting Ozone Transport Commission Meeting

March 16, 2010

Presentation Outline Presentation Outline

• Background
• Potential Measures

– Lightering Controls – Nonroad Idling Limitation – Drayage Emissions Reductions

• Methodology
• Emissions Estimates & Potential Reductions
• Considerations/Issues
• Conclusions

2

Lightering—Background Lightering Background

What is lightering?

• What is lightering?

– Bulk product transfer from one marine vessel to another another

• Why does lightering take place?

– To reduce tanker draft – To expedite product shipment to multiple ports

• Where do lightering emissions come from?

g g

• Controlled lightering employs vapor-balancing

technology

3

Lightering—Background Lightering Background

• Emission Factors

Tons of VOC emitted per million barrels lightered

Product Emission Factor #2 Diesel 0.20 Crude 19.80 Naphtha 25.90 Gasoline 70.70

Source: US EPA’s AP-42

4

Lightering Existing Measures Lightering—Existing Measures

Delaware’s SR1124 §46

• In 2008, DE imposed a percentage-based limit on

uncontrolled lightering

• Steadily reduces the limit of allowable uncontrolled
• Steadily reduces the limit of allowable uncontrolled

lightering

• Title V stationary source

“any fixed building structure facility installation equipment – any fixed building, structure, facility, installation, equipment

• r any motor vehicle, waterborne craft, aircraft or diesel

locomotive deposited, parked, moored, or otherwise remaining temporarily in place, which emits or may emit any air contaminant” (DE Admin Code Title 7 Section 1101) any air contaminant (DE Admin Code, Title 7, Section 1101)

• Regulated entities: lightering service companies
• Enforcement activities

OC ( )

5

• Anticipated reductions: 1115 tpy VOCs (2012)

Lightering—Emissions Estimates and Potential Reductions

Area Product Volume (million BBLs) VOC Emissions (tons) 57% Reduction (tons) 95% Reduction (tons) Narragansett Bay Gasoline, Kerosene 0.2 4 2 4 Long Island Sound Finished Products 1 4 99 56 94 Sound Products 1.4 99 56 94 New York Harbor Gasoline, Fuel Oil, Other 48.3 889 506 844 l d Delaware Bay Crude 98.8 1,956 1,115 1,858 Chesapeake Bay Gasoline 0.3 11 6 10 TOTAL 2,959 570* 1,695*

*Beginning May 1, 2012, Delaware’s lightering regulation will reduce annual VOC emissions by 1,115 tons. Thi i i l d d f TOTAL i l d i i h i i d i i i d

6

This quantity is excluded from TOTAL potential reductions since these emissions reductions are anticipated to result from existing Delaware regulation.

These estimates assume that lightering can be controlled on 100% of ships.

Lightering—Considerations/Conclusions

• Lack of up-to-date lightering data
• Few regulated entities
• Few regulated entities
• Compliance cost—ship upgrades, lightering

time crew training time, crew training

• Effect of Oil Pollution Act of 1990 on fleet
• OTC regional measure vs EPA national
• OTC regional measure vs. EPA national

measure

• Conclusion: Lightering controls will contribute

Conclusion: Lightering controls will contribute significant VOC reductions, but reductions will vary from state to state

7

y

Nonroad DieseI Emissions Nonroad DieseI Emissions

MANE VU 2002 M bil NO MANE VU 2002 Mobile NOx Emissions (tons)

MANE VU 2002 Mobile PM2.5 Emissions (tons)

182,588

Nonroad

22,107 17,332

nonroad diesel Other Mobile 378,873

Diesel Other Mobile

Mobile

Nonroad category excludes railroad equipment and marine vessels

8

Nonroad category excludes railroad equipment and marine vessels

Nonroad Idling Activity and Emissions Nonroad Idling Activity and Emissions

• Three sources of data on activity:

Three sources of data on activity:

– CARB, John Deere, EPA

• CARB estimates nonroad equipment idles

CARB estimates nonroad equipment idles 7.2% of operating time

• John Deere data indicated machines idle

42% percent of time

• EPA data set very limited but was closer to

John Deere than CARB

• Idling emission factors available from EPA

9

Emissions Estimation (continued) Emissions Estimation (continued)

• NESCAUM used the NONROAD model to

NESCAUM used the NONROAD model to estimate populations of 65 nonroad engine types in each of the OTC states for 2009

• A spreadsheet was used to calculate annual

activity (hours in operation) for each equipment type

• The spreadsheet allows the user to vary

idli d h f idli li ibl idling rates and the percent of idling eligible for reduction each year

10

Potential Estimated Annual Emissions O Reductions in the OTR

Idling rate NOx tons HC tons PM tons g assumption reduced reduced reduced 42% of time spent idling 8,188 4,172 803 7.2% of time 1,474 751 145 spent idling

11

Nonroad Idling Conclusions Nonroad Idling Conclusions

• Estimates of idling vary widely, possibly due

g y y, p y to method of gathering data on idling activity

• Assuming machines idle at the low end of

i (7%) i ifi i i estimates (7%), significant emissions reductions could be achieved if idling were restricted in the OTR restricted in the OTR

• California, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and

Connecticut idling restrictions provide model policies for the region

• Relatively low cost

Q ?

12

• Question: who will be the regulated entity?

Reducing Emissions From Port- ff Related Truck Traffic

T k i f i ht i t d t f t

• Trucks carrying freight into and out of ports

(drayage) have been estimated to contribute as much as one third of overall port-related as much as one third of overall port related emissions

• The Port of New York and New Jersey

(PANYNJ) has evaluated several approaches to reduce drayage emissions

• These approaches if adopted region wide
• These approaches if adopted region-wide

could result in lower drayage-related emissions at OTR ports

13

p

PANYNJ Analysis PANYNJ Analysis

• Contractors for PANYNJ evaluated several scenarios

for reducing drayage emissions

• NESCAUM selected one approach to estimate

potential OTR reductions: potential OTR reductions:

• Replacement of pre-1994 drayage vehicles with 2004

vehicles in 2011

• Subsequent replacement of pre-2007 trucks in 2017

with 2007 trucks

• PANYNJ estimates the port would realize annual

reductions of 10% in NOx and 9% in PM from drayage A l b fit ld ti f 24

14

• Annual benefits would continue for 24 years

Potential NOx Reductions in the OTR

State Annual freight (millions tons) 2006 Drayage Emissions (tpy) Annual Benefit 10% (tpy) Lifetime Benefit 24 years (tons) NY/NJ 157 1,935 190 4,555 CT 17 212 21 499 DE 11 137 13 324 MA 26 320 31 755 MD 41 508 50 1,197 ME 26 320 31 755 NH 4 50 5 117 NJ 45 553 54 1,302 NY 10 125 12 295 PA 103 1 263 124 2 976 PA 103 1,263 124 2,976 RI 9 114 11 268 VA 55 673 66 1,587 Total 504 6 210 610 14 629

15

Total 504 6,210 610 14,629

Potential PM2.5 Reduction in the OTR

State Annual freight (millions tons) 2006 Drayage Emissions (tpy) Annual Benefit 9% (tpy) Lifetime Benefit 24 years (tons) NY/NJ 157 54 5.0 131 CT 17 6 0.5 13 DE 11 4 0.4 9 MA 26 9 0.8 20 MD 41 14 1.3 31 ME 26 9 0.8 20 NH 4 1 0.1 3 NJ 45 15 1.4 34 NY 10 3 0.3 8 PA 103 35 3.3 78 RI 9 3 0.3 7 VA 55 19 1.7 42 Total 504 173 16 0 396

16

Total 504 173 16.0 396

Potential Models and Issues Potential Models and Issues

• The PANYNJ drayage program provides a potential

d l f th t f th i model for the rest of the region

• PANYNJ estimates its program will cost $84 million

for the two phases p

• Port of LA, Long Beach, and Oakland gate fees

provide a model of how the program might be paid for (where gate fees are feasible)

• Structure of regulation
• Trucking companies operate on very slim margins

and there are numerous companies operating at p p g Ports in the region

• A possible result of the regulation is that newer trucks

would replace drayage trucks at ports, but the

17

p y g p displaced drayage trucks would end up employed in

• ther shipping activities

Drayage Conclusions Drayage Conclusions

• Potential emissions reductions at OTR ports

Potential emissions reductions at OTR ports are significant

• Emissions reductions would likely occur in

y environmental justice areas and in densely populated urban areas

• Assuming the trucks operate outside of the

port, emissions reduction estimates d h ld b d d presented here could be understated

18